Since 2001, "terror" has been used as a precursor for the United States to attack and invade countries in the Middle East, whom have been seen as agents working against our "national interests", since the 70's, well before the War on Terror. One of the main reasons people question the actual story of 9/11 is because of how this event has been used to propagate multiple military actions against nations and leaders whom the CIA and Security Council have identified as threats to the U.S. decades before the attacks on September 11th. In this very moment, leaders are debating whether or not to go to war with Syria over the accusations that Assad's military has used Sarin nerve gas against it's citizenry. It's important in a situation like this to peel away the cover and war rhetoric and really dig into what is actually going on, and what happens behind the closed doors of government.
In case you didn't already know, the people at the top of our government don't go to war over emotional issues, or the strict defense of human rights. The entire showcase of "America, the Crusader of Justice and Democracy" is absurd, it's language used for those who have no idea what goes on in the global arena, for the mom and pops who are constantly terrified for the security of their children and are afraid of what the world will do to them. The government plays off of this fear, and let's you know, "Yes, the world is a dark and scary place, and you need us to protect you from it."
In the world from a realist perspective, war, trade, air-strikes, and humanitarian aid is all dispensed in some symbiotic fashion. We, along with every other world-power, will not take any action simply because it benefits another country. A thought up strategy may benefit another country, but the plan isn't executed unless there is some benefit to us, and "us" is not you and I as citizens, but "U.S. interests" a term used by many and understood by few. U.S. interests are things that spread American influence through the world. We aren't policing the world because it needs us to survive, it is seen as "in our interest" to do the things we do out of fear of other superpowers, like Russia and China, because it's assumed these nations will take actions and stick their influence somewhere if we don't.
If you need evidence of this, feel free to learn about the Cold War.
We stood idle during the genocide in Rwanda because there was no gain for U.S. interests by interfering. Most of the time when horrible things happen in Africa occur "we" do nothing, because private companies have already sucked the continent dry of it's national resources, and the governments or people themselves have nothing to offer us. Parasitic exploitation is in full circle.
The Middle East has been a focal point of U.S. interests since oil was discovered in the region in the 70's. When America spearheaded the oil boom it also led the industrial revolution in the early 19th century, but eventually, our oil fields began to run dry, and other countries were making discoveries. The Middle East as a whole is rich with oil, but these fields are separated by national lines. If the Ottoman Empire still existed today, it would be the economic focal point of the world, because all of these oil fields would be unified under one national identity. This would provide self sufficiency for the Ottomans, and directly threat the interests of the U.S. by creating a real trade rival. The natural reunification of the Middle East under Arab Nationalism may be seen as an impossibility from the outside (as we are always to believe the Middle East is full of nations who are modern day tribesman with blood vendettas against one another now and forever) but when looking at conventional maps through the past millennium and you will see this region unified more often than not.
Enter Saddam Hussein, more than a brutal dictator, more than a man once on the CIA payroll, supported to destroy Iran, was a Socialist, a member of the Ba'ath Party, and a pan-Arab Nationalist. This is to say, he was someone who wanted the reunification of Arab nations, not so much under peace, but by force. His expansionism into Kuwait caused Desert Storm, effectively shutting down his attempt to acquire territory before it gained any momentum. Decades later we went to war under false pretenses to topple the Iraqi government we helped shape decades before and had Saddam killed. He wasn't a huge threat to us, here at home, but he was a recognizable character, had the respect of his people through fear, had one of the most powerful militaries in the Middle East (we sold it to him) and held Pan-Arab Nationalism as one of his ideals, in other words, he got too close to the Sun.
Let's move onto Muammar Gaddafi, killed without so much of a peep from the American people, was a dictator, but he was also a socialist and an Arab-Nationalist like Saddam. He wasn't a threat to American people, but he was a recognizable name once again, who made himself and his country rich through oil, and another man who called for the region to unite regardless of if the means were peaceful, a man, seen as a leader in the eyes of many in the Middle East.
This is important when looking at Syria. The Iraq War was a strategic disaster. It has been the focal point of public opinion of the War on Terror, and almost brought the war down, as it should have. Bush ordered an invasion, without any real understanding of the Iraq people, and how the country was unified through fear of it's leader, but not commonality. The reason why the occupation of Iraq lasted so long is because the people there wanted their own interests, not the interests of America, Halliburton, or other private companies, to be put first. The profit of private industry exploded in Iraq before any notion of Democracy even hit the table. Insurgents have fought back, suicide bombers have constantly attacked civilians, the entire country is a mess. It doesn't matter to our interests that Iraq is a mess, because it is not a nuclear country, and therefor, destabilized, poses no major threat.
While Saddam and Gaddafi may not have been benevolent leaders who championed human rights, they were able to consolidate power in their countries, generating relative stability and infrastructure inside a region, that seriously lacks these two elements. It could be argued that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were just an opportunity to get boots on the ground in the region, as we have witnessed government after government destabilized and overthrown, not at all in the best interests of the Middle Eastern people. Political unrest or full-blown upheaval in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Lebanon, Jordan, Oman, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain, Libya, and Kuwait.
In the case of Libya, rebels seemingly came out of nowhere in 2011 and created unrest in the country. Gaddafi claimed these rebels were foreign influence trying to purposefully destabilize the country. He said it was "Al-Qaeda" and was mocked on national television in the U.S. for this. These claims were a show of his mental instability and how "bizarre" he is. Both sides of this conflict ignored international law, and tortured one another, wiped out civilians, using them as pawns. Regardless of the politics, eventually the country was successfully destabilized and our government used "atrocities" against mankind as a precursor for air strikes. Gaddafi is dead, and without official U.S. intervention he would have outlasted and eventually defeated the rebels. This time unlike Iraq, we killed the leader we wanted to quickly, and didn't get the bad PR for U.S. casualties, but we did begin the discussion of chemical weapons. Gaddafi never used them, but our news organizations at home started planting the seed and drilled the idea of "concerns of chemical weapons" over and over into the minds of U.S. citizens.
Jump to Syria , and Al-Bashir Assad, a Socialist member of the Ba'ath Party in Syria. Al-Assad's father ruled Syria before him as an Arab-Nationalist, and the President before his father, Shukri al-Quwatli was also an Arab-Nationalist. The country has been destabilized through a bloody Civil War over the past two years, where well over 100,000 people have died. The U.S. government has provided weapons to rebels just like we did in Libya, and like we did in Afghanistan in the 1980's. The rebels have failed to kill Assad or win the war, and now we are to believe it is time for U.S. intervention, because Sarin nerve gas has been used on civilians in the area. Obama and others have been debating whether or not to officially support Syrian rebels for quite sometime, but have been scared off by Russia's tough talk (it is in their interests for Syria not to be attacked as the only Russian naval base in the Mediterranean is in Syria). We contemplated assassinating Assad when the conflict began because protesters were being killed and stood down. As the violence has escalated, the pundits and war-hawks of corporate news channels have debated whether or not to intervene in Syria through the entire conflict.
Here are some more things to think about on Syria. Al-Assad, like Gaddafi, has claimed the rebels are trained and influenced by Al-Qaeda. A pretty strange claim, as it gets ignored and completely overlooked by our media. All of the the governments thrown into chaos have come from what corporate news called "The Arab Spring". All of the rebels involved in the Spring are just as violent as their predecessors, and adhere to the idea of Sharia Law, a sect of Islam, where government and religion are conjoined. A sect of government that routinely causes human rights abuses. Once again, the people of the region have not benefited, but the theme of "divide and conquer" has well been put into place.
Why would Bashir Al-Assad use Sarin gas on civilians only a few days after the UN Security Council sent people to look for chemical weapons? Knowing Obama has long wanted to have a way into Syria, why would he use chemical weapons, months after Obama claimed this would be a "red-line" drawn for us to intervene? It makes absolutely no sense from a strategic standpoint. The man has been fighting off rebels for two years, to hold onto the nation given to him after his father's death, and he does the only thing that would guarantee U.S. interference?
If we struck now and killed Assad, we would damage our relations with Russia, show the entire Arab community it is us, not them, that control their destiny, we would spend millions if not more money we as hard working Americans don't have, and we would hand Syria over to murderers. That's right, beyond the rhetoric of Assad, is the brutal truth of those whom oppose him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Just like in Libya, both sides of this war are ignoring international laws of war, like most in the Middle East tend to do, and we are supposed to support a side? We are supposed to put our own credibility on the line after it has been so damaged, to pick a side in the matter? The article below shows, that we don't even know whom is using chemical weapons.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/
It would make a lot more sense for rebels to release the gas and blame it on Assad, knowing this would cause U.S. intervention and the eventual fall of the Assad regime, wouldn't it? You have to wonder what the end game is for every side to be able to play in this game.
For some reason, big Whigs have decided destabilizing and throwing the entire Middle-East into chaos is in the U.S. best interests. My guess would be so puppet dictators like Mohammad Mossadegh and President Mubarak, can be re-established in the region with renewed support for U.S. interests to directly oppose Iran's influence in the region, and oppose any chance of Arabs and Persians of uniting under an common regional identity. You see, there was a revolution in Iran in 1979, and those who determine "our interests" really, really took this personal, and there has seemingly been some sort of vendetta on the Middle East since. I don't see any of this to be coincidence, because it isn't, just like it isn't a coincidence that Syria borders Iran, and opposes Israel.
It's all in our best interests, to have blood on our hands, more blood on our hands, more countries thrown into chaos, and more Israeli operations completed without them having to spend a dime or go to war directly with their enemies. It's all in our interests to ensure Israeli dominance economically and militarily over the region permanently. Here's some more food for thought. John McCain seems to be pretty intent on going to war...now.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/09/20139414329291833.html
No comments:
Post a Comment